venerdì 14 settembre 2012

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:

INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: AN IMPERATIVE FOR PEACE AND THE COMMON GOOD

Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi,
c.s.*

1. Principles and reality 2. Evolution of the idea of religious
freedom 3. Religious freedom in the
Catholic Church 4. Religious freedom in
a secularized culture 5. Working for
religious freedom 6. The
American experiment

1. Principles and reality

Freedom
of religion is a global concern. From my observatory in Geneva,
where the U. N. Human Rights Council is based, it is clear that religion has
become a topic of frequent debate. Last March, the Human Rights Council
unanimously approved an explicit resolution on freedom of religion or belief
where once again States are urged “to
ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in
conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and
members of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or
humanitarian institutions is fully respected and protected.” On that occasion,
I argued, on behalf of the Holy See, that “religions are communities based on convictions and
their freedom guarantees a contribution of moral values without which the
freedom of everyone is not possible.”

More than ever before, political
analysts and human rights advocates include religion in their agenda. But most
of them emphasize either “tolerance”, as if religion were merely a source of
conflict, or “individual choices”, as if religion were merely the concern of an
individual’s convictions and were devoid of social consequences. The juridical
arsenal to protect religious liberty, however, has been stocked with some
excellent resources developed in response to the horrors of World War II and
the systematic violation of human dignity and human rights by the Nazi and
Communist totalitarian regimes. With the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, freedom of religion entered the realm of international law and jurisprudence.
This prompted the framing and enforcement of other human rights instruments at a
global, regional and local level. In fact, declarations, conventions and
charters have literally mushroomed. I will mention only a few: the International Pact on Civil and

*Archbishop Silvano M.
Tomasi,c.s., is an Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the
United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva.

Political Rights (1966), the Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion
or Belief (1981)[1], that lists, among other
specific requirements, the freedom to establish and maintain appropriate
charitable or humanitarian institutions; and the Resolution of 1986 that
establishes a Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief. With
these and other Conventions that include specific references to religious
rights, the international community has guaranteed freedom of religion at the
individual, collective and institutional levels.

The Universal Declaration set a
standard for what type of treatment human beings are entitled, as well as for
what States are morally obliged to enforce. If a State ignores such rights,
this may well have a serious impact on its international relations as well in
on its domestic debate and legal framework.

Declarations, however, are not
enough. What is enshrined in them can be misused and misinterpreted. Moreover,
States and popular movements can even manipulate such declarations into
powerful tools of self-justification and may thereby pursue goals that are in
conflict with the very rights they were
designed to enforce.

At present, there is no doubt
that religious freedom is under stress worldwide. During the 20th century, some
forty-five million Christians died because of their faith. The trend continues.
A 2011 study on global restrictions on religion by the Pew Research Center’s
Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 70% of the world’s population
lives in countries with high restrictions on religious beliefs and practices,
the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities—including, in some
cases, people who are secular or non-religious. Additionally, more than 2.2
billion people, nearly a third (32%) of the world’s total population, live in
countries where either government restrictions on religion or social
hostilities involving religion rose substantially between mid-2006 and
mid-2009. Only 1% of the world’s population lives in countries where government
restrictions or social hostilities have declined. The number of countries in
which governments used at least some measure of force against religious groups
or individuals rose from 91 (46%) in the period ending in mid-2008 to 101 (51%)
in the period ending in mid-2009. The consequent violence was wide-ranging,
including murder, physical abuse, imprisonment, detention or displacement from
one’s home, as well as damage to or destruction of personal or religious
properties. On the increase are mob violence, religious-motivated terrorist
groups and the commission of malicious acts by private citizens and groups
motivated by religious hatred. Christians are the first target. The Pew Report
adds that restrictions on religion are particularly common in the 59 countries
that prohibit blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion. While such laws
are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they often
serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or
heretical. A simple review of the daily press confirms the Pew study: bombs are
exploded in churches during Mass in Nigeria and Kenya; threats are carried out
against the ancient Christian communities of Iraq, and now of Syria, thus
forcing them into exile; a Christian girl of 11, living with Down Syndrome,
Rimsha Masih, is arrested on charges of blasphemy and put in jail in Pakistan,
for purportedly burning pages of the Koran and 400 Christian families of her
poor neighborhood took flight in fear for their lives; Sufi shrines are turned
to rubble in Libya; a rabbi is attacked in the streets of Berlin and has
to be hospitalized and rabbinical
students are advised not to wear their kippa in public places; a Catholic
Bishop Ma Da Qin is placed under home arrest for allegiance to the Pope;
Christians are in flight from Northern Mali to escape the violent attacks of
fundamentalists. The International Society for Human Rights estimates that 80
percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed
at Christians and that some 150,00 Christian are killed for the faith every
year.

The age of martyrs is still with
us. The struggle for religious liberty endures. In a more sophisticated way,
Western liberal democracies subscribe to a public culture that tends to
relegate religion to the private sphere and, through their respective court
systems, chip away at the original understanding of religious freedom. Through
a narrow reading of human rights-related provisions, the wording of declarations repeatedly has
been reinterpreted in order to fit the political agendas that have changed over
time. Education, family law, healthcare are just some of the fields in which
narrow reading of religious freedom paved the way to antireligious policies.

2.Evolution of the idea of religious
freedom

The journey leading to the
recognition of the right to freedom of conscience and belief has been long and
painful. It began with Jesus’ words: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to
God what is God's" (Mark 12:17). Christians were to fulfill their
obligations, to the fullest extent possible, to both God and the State. At the
same time, it became clear that there are limits to the jurisdiction of earthly
rulers. Caesar’s image is on those things necessary to the proper function of
civil society; therefore, civil government legitimately exerts power over this
realm. But since human being bear the image of God, the imago Dei, their allegiance to God takes precedence over their
allegiance to the State. Moreover, genuine love for God comes willingly from
the inner person; forced love is an impossibility. Three premises are
established: a distinction between religion and the State and the legitimacy of
both; the priority of God in case of conflict between the two; the voluntary
nature of genuine religious devotion.

Tertullian at beginning of the
third century wrote: it is a ”fundamental human right, a privilege of nature,
that every man should worship according to their own convictions” (Ad Scapulam,
2), and he coined the expression freedom of religion (libertas religionis).

Over the centuries, intolerance
and persecution were only too familiar to the Christian communities. Over time,
the insight of the Gosepl prevailed, particularly since it could be argued in a
coherent and logical way by human reason. Religious freedom became the space
that offered people the freedom to rise above all human and contingent
situations and enabled them to answer some of the critical questions all of us
have to ask at least once in life: if God exists; what happens after my
death? Along this same path, then,
religious freedom has been accepted as the right of every person to profess
religion according to the dictate of her or his conscience. Such right to
establish a relation with God in the intimacy of one’s conscience implies both
an individual-focused and a communitarian way to exercise this relation that
must be protected from any constraint. To affirm religious liberty as a
fundamental right means to sustain the autonomy of the person not so much
toward religion, but vis-à-vis those who would want to limit the range of
one’s religious sentiment. The
achievement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a milestone in the
historical journey. It states: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and
of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, …. Everyone has the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” (Art. 18) This article
18 remains the cornerstone of the international framework for recognition of
and respect for religious freedom and,
together with other treaties, it provides the arsenal that theoretically and
juridically can protect religious
freedom everywhere.

3. Religious freedom in the Catholic Church

The importance of religious
freedom for promotion of the common good and peaceful coexistence also has
become a major chapter in the social doctrine of the Church. There is a
convergence of language and substance between international human rights
developments and Church teaching. Besides, the educational role of the Church
has helped in no small way the consolidation of democratic institutions.
The American contribution to the Second Vatican Council opened the door wide
for an understanding of religious freedom that truly universalizes this right:
“ This Vatican Council declares that
the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all
men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social
groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act
in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether
alone or in association with others, within due limits. The Council further
declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very
dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word
of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious
freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is
governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” (Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, 2) The moral battle of Blessed John Paul II to
sensitize world’s conscience that all believers should effectively enjoy
religious freedom has led to the well known results that transformed the map of
Europe and global politics; his unique
spiritual leadership advanced freedom in the world. The aspiration for
religious freedom also has been at the root of recent democratic movements that
led to the fall of several dicatorships.

Through the masterful addresses
of Our Holy Father Benedict XVI and, in
line with him, through his Representatives in the U.N. arena, the voice of the
Holy See reminds the international community that, even in our present circumstances, peace requires
religious freedom. In fact, the promotion of full and universal respect for
this liberty guides the activity of the Holy See in international and
intergovernmental organizations, in the stipulation of concordats and other
agreements, and in the service of its diplomatic corps. The commitment that
flows from faith benefits the entire society. The example of Mother Teresa of Calcutta offers clear
evidence .

4. Religious freedom in a secularized
culture

Profound changes have taken place in most
societies, however, due to
an increasing differentiation of beliefs, life styles, cultural
traditions, ethnic identities,
secularization and extreme individualism. Globalization forces us to interact
across national, cultural, religious and other boundaries. Democratic States
are challenged to search for common acceptable criteria to preserve social peace and cohesion.
Certainly the ethical core of fundamental convictions within each person must
be respected, protected and guaranteed; if need be, through an affirmative
action by public authorities. But such
an individualized focus on belief might also facilitate legitimation of
behaviours, or mere passions, that are quite distant from the lived and
institutional dimensions of religions. This religion à la carte places the legislator in a difficult situation that
risks the limitation of religious freedom in an effort to find pragmatic
solutions. God’s existence, the assumption in all the historical journey in the
development of the doctrine of religious liberty, is no longer assumed. Nor is
the anthropological foundation of human rights preserved.

The question then arises of how to find
common values to keep cohesion and
peaceful coexistence in society, while
respecting religious freedom in the new circumstances. In common we have our
human nature; this becomes the starting point for the search.. Nature, reason
and the profound desire of the human heart for fulfilment provide the
possibility to discover and understand the basic core values of every person.
“Any well-regulated and productive association of men in society demands the
acceptance of one fundamental principle: that each individual man is truly a
person.” Wrote Pope John XXIII. “His is a nature, that is, endowed with
intelligence and free will. As such he has rights and duties, which together
flow as a direct consequence from his nature. These rights and duties are
universal and inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable.” (Pacem in Terris, 9) In this line of
reasoning, freedom is not separated from truth, and thus eventual and objective
ethical limits to personal and social conduct are implied. The range of freedom of the person, while she
finds limits in her reference to truth, extends beyond the subjective
dimension. The person does not arrive to be a person without relations to
others. Therefore freedom of religion includes a communitarian and
institutional aspect, as well as inter
alia the right of each religion to establish its own rules, to exercise the
power of self-organization and to disseminate its doctrine. The State cannot
intrude on this process and can limit the exercise of institutional religious
freedom only if such action is warranted in accord with the principles of
respect for public order and the common good.[RV1] Attempts
by the State to restrict fundamental
values, like the right to life, or to oblige a person to go against her
conscience, can never be justified,
since this would violate personal
dignity and be detrimental to society
itself. Moreover, compliance with certain core values provides a solid basis
for social cohesion, respect for others and the wellbeing of society as a
whole. It has been aptly observed “that just as freedom of speech depends not
only on one’s right to say what’s on one’s mind, but on the existence of
institutions like newspapers, universities, libraries, parties, and
associations, so freedom of religion also involves protecting the institutions
that nourish individual free exercise.”

5. Working for religious freedom

A reason approach to human rights and
religious liberty finds a universal appeal because it is centred on the
person. But we cannot lose sight of the
fact that the religious dimension of the person is part of human experience in
all cultures and social contexts. The
contribution of reason and of religious insights to support religious liberty
is like the continuity of a ray of light that cannot be cut at any point.
Instead of hostility, the correct relationship between religious norms and the
public sphere can be articulated with reasonable arguments of a general
character and without the exclusion of religious insights. From the mutual openness of believers of
different religions and non-believers of good will, great benefits can derive
for a dialogue among religions and convictions to promote peace and the common
good of humanity as well as to establish a serene coexistence, social progress
and institutional stability in each State. Indifference or an exclusive
absorption in materialistic pursuits risks to relegate the fundamental right of
religious freedom to be considered a “second class” right with the negative
consequences of violent claims and insurgencies that the repression of this
right has shown throughout history. Thus support of religious freedom calls for
a culture of respect, for a system of education that teaches the value of
searching together for the truth and of respect for the sincere beliefs of
evryone, that encourages forgiveness and
promotes harmony in a way that integral
human development can truly be achieved. Pope John Paul II shared the learning
from his personal experience when he taught that: “Dialogue between cultures, a
privileged means for building the civilization of love, is based upon the
recognition thatthere are
values which are common to all culturesbecause
they are rooted in the nature of the person. These values express humanity's
most authentic and distinctive features. Leaving aside ideological prejudices
and selfish interests, it is necessary to foster people's awareness of these
shared values, in order to nurture that intrinsically universal cultural
"humus-soil" which makes for fruitful and constructive dialogue.”[2] A practical
help to advance religious liberty in the world and its many derived benefits is
the political monitoring of the implementation of this right that is undertaken
by the European Union and by the U.S. State Department, by the United Nations
Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodical Review of States, and in the annual
Reports on how religious liberty fares
in the countries of the world. Thus we note an increasing awareness of the link
between foreign policy and religious freedom. Ultimately, each one of us should
engage in this task. I am reminded of an old African story of the king lion
escaping the forest in flames followed by all the animals. When the lion
notices a tiny hummingbird flying counter current toward the fire yells at him:
”What do you think you are doing with your useless flight?” And the hummingbird
replies: “I’m trying to put out the fire.” Then the lion with a mocking laugh
retorts: “With only one drop of water…?”
Without breaking his flight the hummingbird answers: “I do my share.”

6. The American experiment

The novelty of the American
experiment has been to guarantee the free exercise of religious liberty for
individuals, for different religious groups, and for their religious-inspired
institutions. This remains a lasting and valid contribution to the world. John
Noonan rightly defined religious liberty as the “lustre” of the United States.Religious freedom was among the
most relevant freedoms that gave origin and shape to the American colonies,
then to the American states, and subsequently to the AmericanRepublic.

Americans have a special
relationship with the value of religious liberty; it is well embedded, not just
in their past, but also in their present. Our twentieth century Civil Rights
movement was prompted by religious communities and personalities who
substantially contributed to erase racial inequality.

But the special relationship
between the United States
and religious liberty has not been fruitful just for Americans. It has been
fruitful for everybody. The American sensitivity to religious freedom played a
prominent role in shaping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thanks to
the personal engagement of Eleanor Roosevelt, as I mentioned previously, a deep
understanding of religious freedom found its place in a foundational article of
the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The American experience of religious
freedom still is the focus of serious study in other parts of the world,
including Europe. Scholars and legislators
there still draw inspiration from American Constitutionalism when they try to
find new and positive ways of conceiving the relationship between religions and
the State. Even the Catholic Church learned much from the American experience
as it shaped, during the Second Vatican Council, what became the Declaration on Religious Freedom. The United States still plays a global
role in upholding religious freedom as, in many ways, does the Church in this
country.

Democracies are built by
respecting, through personal and institutional choices, this freedom of conscience and religion,
rather than by military imposition, legal
dictat, or the destruction of entire societies. The United StatesBill of Rights embodies a
principle that remains a test of genuine democracy: the free exercise of
religion, that clearly implies freedom of conscience and of institutional
expression of belief. The American Constitution then prohibits that the State
adopt legislation
to establish an official religion or that it
prefer one religion over another. From this perspective, the State should not interfere with the free
exercise of religious freedom, or with one’s practice of religion, nor should
the State require a person to act against her or his religious views.
Thus the presence of religious
communities in the public sphere cannot be relegated to the celebrations of
rites and ceremonies, but must be able to play an active role and to express
their own vision of the human person and of the policies that rule society.

As the world becomes more
diversified through technology of communication, migration, cultural changes, scientific
progress that involves the human condition, and the emergence of new religious
communities, peace and creative living together in our globalized and
interconnected societies will be
possible only if freedom of religion is fully respected. Indeed, this is the human
right that, in the end, guarantees all other human rights. The preservation of
the American experience must remain a contribution for the peaceful and truly
democratic future of our world. As Alexis de Tocqueville so wisely remarked,
“Despotism may be able to do without faith but freedom cannot.” Thus, we stand
for religious freedom so as to free others to become fully human.

Allow me to conclude these
remarks by quoting our Holy Father, a strong advocate of religious liberty: “You are called to live with that
attitude full of faith that is described in the Letter to Diognetus: do
not deny anything of the Gospel in which you believe, but live in the midst of
others with sympathy, communicating by your very way of life that humanism
which is rooted in Christianity, in order to build together with all people of
good will a “city” which is more human, more just and more supportive.”[3]

In accordance with article 1 of the present Declaration, and subject to
the provisions of article 1, paragraph 3, the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief shall include, inter alia , the following
freedoms:

( a ) To worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief,
and to establish and maintain places for these purposes;

[RV1]Do you really want to say “if the
rights of others require it” – that could be used to justify the requirement
that religious institutions perform abortions when States recognize such
aright, or gay marriages, etc, etc.